Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Muhammad Masroor-ul-Haq, impugns the Office Order dated 20.06.2016, issued by the, Workers Welfare Fund, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Government of Pakistan, whereby the petitioner, along with other officers, who .were posted on deputation basis in the Workers Welfare Fund (`WWF') against posts reserved for promotion quota, were repatriated to their parent departments/organizations. In October, 2015, the petitioner had been sent on deputation from the Sindh Workers Welfare Board (' S-WWB') to WWF. on deputation basis.
2. Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been serving as Assistant Director (BS-17) at the WWF, Islamabad, since 12.10.2015; that the WWF and the S-WWB are autonomous organizations working under the control of the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Government of Pakistan; that the petitioner is not a civil servant; that the S-WWB is a body corporate under the supervision and control of the governing body of the WWF; that the SWWB has been created in pursuance of the provisions of the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, which is a federal statute; that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director (BPS-17) in the S-WWB in 2010; that subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from the SWWB to the WWF, Islamabad; that the petitioner was not sent to the WWF on deputation; that in view of the order dated 07.07.2009, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Constitution Petition No, D767/2009, the petitioner's posting to the WWF, Islamabad, is to be treated as a transfer and not as a deputation; that on account of the petitioner's employment at the S-WWB, the petitioner also became an employee of the WWF; and that the petitioner's transfer to the WWF cannot be treated as a deputation regardless of the fact that the letters dated 28.09.2015, 07.10.2015, 20.10.2015 and 20.06.2016, show him as a deputationist.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's wife was a permanent employee of the Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan and was posted as Statistical Assistant at Islamabad; that the petitioner had three young school going children; and that' under the wedlock policy, the petitioner could not be repatriated or sent back to the S-WWB. It was further submitted that the petitioner had a legitimate right and an expectation to be absorbed in the WWF.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Arbab Alam Abbasi, Advocate, for Respondent No, 2/WWF, submitted that the petitioner was well aware that he was posted as a deputationist at the WWF, Islamabad; that the documents on the record including letters dated 28.09.2015 07.10.2015, 20.10.2015 and 20.06.2016 clearly show that the petitioner was posted at WWF, Islamabad, on deputation basis; that at the WWF, the petitioner was working against the post reserved for promotion quota; that through Constitution Petition No, D-1943/2016, filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh by employees of the WWF, the posting of deputationists on posts reserved for promotion quota were challenged; that the petitioner was one of the respondents in the said Constitution Petition; that the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh was informed about the repatriation of the petitioner and other officers posted on deputation against the posts reserved for promotion quota and consequently, vide order dated 16.08.2016, the said petition was disposed of that the petitioner cannot take refuge behind the wedlock policy to avoid his repatriation to his parent department i,e, the 5- WWB.
5. It was further submitted that after the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, the parent department of the petitioner had been devolved; that the S-WWB was operating under the provisions of the Sindh Workers Welfare Fund Act, 2014; and that FIRs had been registered against the petitioner by his previous employers.
6. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The record shows that on 20.08.2010, the petitioner joined the S-WWB, and was posted as Assistant Director (Welfare) at its Regional Office in Hyderabad. On 4.9.2015, the petitioner applied to Respondent No, 1/the Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Division, Islamabad, for the transfer of his services to WWF or Overseas Pakistanis Foundation or Employees Old-age Benefit Institution. The petitioner claimed that he was facing life threats and that it was not possible for him to continue with his job and keep his family in Sindh. On 28.09.2015, the WWF requested the S-WWB to post the petitioner as an Assistant Director in the WWF on deputation basis. On 07.10.2015, the petitioner was relieved from the S-WWB for his deputation at the WWF, Islamabad. As per the office order dated 20.10.2015, issued by the WWF, the petitioner joined the WWF on deputation basis with effect from 12.10.2015. As mentioned above, vide the impugned Office Order dated 20.06.2016, the petitioner along with other officers working on deputation against posts reserved for promotion quota were repatriated to their parent departments/organizations. On 23.06.2016, the petitioner made a representation to the Secretary, Workers Welfare Fund against his repatriation. In the said representation, the petitioner sought suspension of his repatriation orders primarily on the ground of the wedlock policy. The petitioner also expressed his desire to be absorbed in the WWF.
8. Now there is no denying the fact that the petitioner was employed at the S-WWB in 2010 as Assistant Director (Welfare), and served in that position until his posting on deputation at WWF, Islamabad, in October, 2015. The fact that the petitioner was posted as a deputationist has been expressly mentioned in the following letters:
(i) Letter dated 28.09.2015 (whereby the petitioner's services were requisitioned by the Workers Welfare Fund from the Sindh Workers Welfare Board on deputation basis);
(ii) Letter dated. 07.10.2015 (whereby the Sindh Workers Welfare Board relieved the petitioner, from his posting on deputation at the Workers Welfare Fund, Islamabad); and
(iii) Letter dated 20.10.2015 (whereby the Workers Welfare Fund confirmed that the petitioner had joined the Workers Welfare Fund Islamabad on deputation basis from the Sindh Workers Welfare Board).
9. The petitioner was well aware of the contents of above referred letters and never took steps to correct the position if he firmly believed that his posting to WWF, Islamabad was not on deputation basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner also did not deny that at the WWF, the petitioner had 'been working on a post reserved for promotion quota.
10. The petitioner has filed documents showing that Workers Welfare Boards were required by the WWF to adopt the Workers Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997. Rule 23 (1) and (2) of the said Rules reads as follows,: .
"(1) Appointment on deputation to posts in the Fund may be made by the appointing authority in the interest of the Fund.
(2) Civil Servants, Federal or Provincial, and employees of the corporations or other autonomous bodies set up, managed or controlled by the Federal Government or, as the case may be, any Provincial Government, holding appointment on regular basis, may, with the consent of the Federal Government or, as the case may be, of the Provincial Government or other authority concerned, hereinafter called the lending authority, be appointed by the appointing authority concerned on deputation to appropriate posts in the Fund for such periods and on such terms and conditions, as may be determined by appointing authority in consultation with the concurrence of the lending authority."
11. It is by virtue of the said Rules that the petitioner came as a deputationist to the WWF. Deputation has been defined as an administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending . authorities for utilizing services of an employee in public interest and exigency of services against a particular post. Deputation was a contract between the borrowing and the lending authorities, which was liable to be terminated at any stage during prescribed period of deputation. A deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in accordance with his own whims and wishes.
12. It is settled law that a deputationist may not necessarily complete the tenure for which he was deputed and the power rested with the competent authority to repatriate a deputationist without assigning any reason. In case of transfer on deputation, no vested right accrued to a deputationist to continue for the period of deputation. The competent authority was empowered to repatriate a deputationist as and when the exigencies of service required. Some of the cases in which this view has been taken are mentioned herein below:--
(i) In the case of Pakistan vs. Fatal Rehman Khundkar & another reported as PLD 1959 Supreme Court (Pak.) 82, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that it is a matter of practice and common experience, that officers of the Provincial cadres deputed for service at the Centre are frequently recalled by their Province, by the Provincial Government, in the exigencies of the public service. Against such a recall they have no right of any kind to object, being substantively officers of the Provincial Government and only on deputation to the Centre. The mere fact that they may be holding at the Centre a post higher in rank than that to which their place in the Provincial cadre entitles them in the Provincial service does not constitute the least bar to the making of an order by the Central Government at the request of the Provincial Government, re-placing the services of such an officer at the disposal of his parent Government.
(ii) In the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi vs. CDA, Islamabad reported as 2010 SCMR 378, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973, and rules made thereunder, as well as Esta Code were silent about the fact that a deputationist must serve his entire period of deputation and such omission seemed deliberate enabling the competent authority to utilize service of an employee in the manner as it might deem fit and proper. Period of deputation could at the best be equated to that of an expression of maximum period which could be curtailed or extended by competent authority and no legal or vested rights were available to a deputationist to serve' his entire period of deputation in borrowing department.
(iii) In the case of Mst. Robia Ayub vs. Federation of Pakistan reported as 2013 PLC (CS) 915, it has been herd by this court that a deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in accordance with his/her own whims and wishes. Civil servant has no vested right to complete the deputation period as it is a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service. Competent authority of borrowing department having sole discretion to decide fate of deputationist could repatriate him at any time to parent department.
(iv) In case of Abdul Majeed vs. Chief Secretary, Punjab reported as'2015 PLC (CS) 1381, it has been held by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court that a deputationist did not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period. A deputationist could be ordered to be repatriated to his parent department at any time without assigning any reason. Parent department of appellant-employee was not bound to assign reason for his repatriation.
(v) In case of Lal Khan vs. Employees Old Age Benefit Institution reported as 2010 PLC (CS) 1377 (Karachi), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh that a deputationist had no vested right to remain on post forever or for a stipulated period. A deputationist could not challenge order of his repatriation as he could be repatriated back to parent department at any time.